On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 09:16:31PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 12:34:18 -0500
> Kyle Roeschley wrote:
>
> > Hi Boris,
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 03:16:23PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > +Peter, who's currently reworking the NAND BBT
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 09:16:31PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 12:34:18 -0500
> Kyle Roeschley wrote:
>
> > Hi Boris,
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 03:16:23PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > +Peter, who's currently reworking the NAND BBT code.
> > >
> > > On Wed,
On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 12:34:18 -0500
Kyle Roeschley wrote:
> Hi Boris,
>
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 03:16:23PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > +Peter, who's currently reworking the NAND BBT code.
> >
> > On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 15:13:51 +0200
> > Boris Brezillon
On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 12:34:18 -0500
Kyle Roeschley wrote:
> Hi Boris,
>
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 03:16:23PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > +Peter, who's currently reworking the NAND BBT code.
> >
> > On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 15:13:51 +0200
> > Boris Brezillon wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Kyle,
> > >
Hi Boris,
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 03:16:23PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> +Peter, who's currently reworking the NAND BBT code.
>
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 15:13:51 +0200
> Boris Brezillon wrote:
>
> > Hi Kyle,
> >
> > On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 17:31:16 -0500
> >
Hi Boris,
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 03:16:23PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> +Peter, who's currently reworking the NAND BBT code.
>
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 15:13:51 +0200
> Boris Brezillon wrote:
>
> > Hi Kyle,
> >
> > On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 17:31:16 -0500
> > Kyle Roeschley wrote:
> >
> > > If
+Peter, who's currently reworking the NAND BBT code.
On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 15:13:51 +0200
Boris Brezillon wrote:
> Hi Kyle,
>
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 17:31:16 -0500
> Kyle Roeschley wrote:
>
> > If erasing or writing the BBT fails, we
+Peter, who's currently reworking the NAND BBT code.
On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 15:13:51 +0200
Boris Brezillon wrote:
> Hi Kyle,
>
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 17:31:16 -0500
> Kyle Roeschley wrote:
>
> > If erasing or writing the BBT fails, we should mark the current BBT
> > block as bad and use the BBT
Hi Kyle,
On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 17:31:16 -0500
Kyle Roeschley wrote:
> If erasing or writing the BBT fails, we should mark the current BBT
> block as bad and use the BBT descriptor to scan for the next available
> unused block in the BBT. We should only return a failure if
Hi Kyle,
On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 17:31:16 -0500
Kyle Roeschley wrote:
> If erasing or writing the BBT fails, we should mark the current BBT
> block as bad and use the BBT descriptor to scan for the next available
> unused block in the BBT. We should only return a failure if there isn't
> any space
If erasing or writing the BBT fails, we should mark the current BBT
block as bad and use the BBT descriptor to scan for the next available
unused block in the BBT. We should only return a failure if there isn't
any space left.
Based on original code implemented by Jeff Westfahl
If erasing or writing the BBT fails, we should mark the current BBT
block as bad and use the BBT descriptor to scan for the next available
unused block in the BBT. We should only return a failure if there isn't
any space left.
Based on original code implemented by Jeff Westfahl
.
Signed-off-by:
12 matches
Mail list logo